Skip to main content

tv   Senate Banking Committee on Russia Sanctions  CSPAN  August 30, 2018 7:30am-9:47am EDT

7:30 am
cable television companies. and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress. the white house of the supreme court and the public policy events in washington dc and around the country. it is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. the treasury on land security. they testify on sanctions imposed on russia. the senate banking committee is examining that sanction strategy and what impact it may have on the russian government. this hearing as two hours and 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] the
7:31 am
hearing will come to order. this morning we will receive testimony from senior administration officials. from the department of treasury on the implementation and effectiveness of the sanction program currently in place against russia. the reason for the sanctions include russia standing military deliveries in ukraine. with the warfare activities in the cyber attacks against the united states critical infrastructure including malicious meddling in a host of other activities. the banking committee has a leading role. were specially those with financial institutions. to address serious threats from the national security of the
7:32 am
united states. just about one year ago on august 2. the president signed into law. sanctions act of 2013. it included in it. with this strength and sanctions against russia. and brand-new authorities for several powerful mandatory sanctions. it was this committee that put together the foundation for the sanctions. in the financial measures. as a part of the project. it was truly a foursquare effort was the only strongly bipartisan it passed the house by vote of 419 to three. and two days later. on a vote of 98-two. it's not often that congress gets together in such a strong manner as marked by a near unanimous vote.
7:33 am
congress can be compelled to act with a single voice to find solutions that were protect america throughout the world. in the year since has imposed some of the toughest sanctions on russia in years. with regards to those in april. the bulk of sanctions have the unlawful invasion. these were strengthened by congress and as with any other change will likely remain in place until he is no longer in power. and all over the last year. the administration has sanctioned over 200 targeted russian individuals for either the cyber attack or the ukraine behavior. these are pursuant to rational behavior.
7:34 am
i hope to receive an update today from our witnesses on how the sanctions are being plummeted and enforced. it was a positive step went two weeks ago. with the nerve agent and britain against one of the former spies in his daughter. the state department shows its result by opposing a set of regulations. the administration is taking some important steps against there. but can congress expect more from the administration congress itself is positioned to do more. there are bills in this committee and in the foreign relations committee that seek to escalate the economic pain. in the sovereign debt market.
7:35 am
as they consider the next steps. including sanctions and other diplomatic instances. what degree of success has the existing sanctions which were to constrain the russian economy and derail the activity of those individuals. had had on the behavior at home and abroad. what is the most effective way to coordinate and strengthen sanctions with our european allies. we will obviously had many more questions. i'm finished with it at this point. >> i'm really glad you're holding this hearing. this is the first in the coming weeks and sanctions and other members. while they've have some effect on the economy.
7:36 am
it's less clear what effect they've have on the activities around the world. its proxies are still in eastern ukraine. it serves as the arsenal and it continues to attack our elections and other critical infrastructure. outlining russian attacks on the u.s. senate. and on think tanks. they promptly denied involvement. they will forcefully respond. our government we and the president both must right now sent a more powerful and direct message. we know what you're doing, and must stop. and if it continues if you
7:37 am
continue you and your government will pay a dear price. so far the president has basically been a wall. modestly even undercutting. even modernists efforts. over a year ago congress gave the president the authority. to use the sanctions against russia. they pressed for nearly a year for stronger implementation. after months of rating the state and treasury department. these hearings and it audits were not simply a reaction. it was widely. on both sides of the aisle on both sides of the atlantic. with a few exceptions the president has refused to forcefully use the new authorities under cap step. they were responsible for the
7:38 am
use of syria. our un ambassador announced the imposition of sanctions. the next day they were withdrawn. it said the administration requested a broader waiver to sections 231 be included in the defense bill. basically because they could not certify with key condition. i think is a bad idea to use a recent defense bill to relax waiver authorities. instead of strengthening sanctions. we've got gone in the opposite direction. they continue to face that. why a new round of oversight hearings and been convened. and they give get the chairman credit for that. they're both proposing a new sanctions.
7:39 am
i think most of us agree that they should also do more to increase pressure. they acted last august by overwhelming majorities. we should focus on the facts in and the broader strategic questions. what are they still doing in syria and and syria in ukraine. what active cyber attacks are the directed against our elections. what powerful academic trade and diplomatic tools can we deploy now to ensure those attacks. they confirm unanimously by intelligence this year and reaffirmed again today. it goes far beyond foreign-policy with 77 days. there is a direction with national intelligence. they been sounding the alarms.
7:40 am
while some efforts are being made. they will address their source russian's government. i know my constituents are clear eyed about these threats. in ohio and around the world. they know firsthand. like our nato allies. that's why we should not only press those more aggressively. also strengthen the response. they had been introduced. they the hearings are the critical next step. i'm interested to hear what they are. on the behavior and your ideas and how you will more forcefully control the threats in the months to come. we will hear testimony from three administration officials.
7:41 am
to deal with confronting the russia threat. the acting deputy secretary. as the country's chief sanction architect. with the national programs director. he was responsible for reducing if not eliminating and then recovering for threats from our striver our infrastructure. we will hear from dr. christopher ford. at the state department. who can provide us with some valuable insight. you can see members of the panel. with a very good attendance. and the number of those who are here are at a different hearing on russia. because of that i think you
7:42 am
first of all for your written testimony. it was extremely helpful for us. we can get through our questioning time from our senators. with a five minute rule. we will try to date to stick very closely to that. with the distinguished members of the committee. thank you for inviting me here today to speak on behalf of the treasury department and provide an effort. on the comprehensive effort are efforts taken together with our partners across the u.s. government and around the world are guided by a clear understanding of what they posed to the united states. to their friends and allies. as this committee is well aware.
7:43 am
it seeks to challenge the united states in a variety of ways. they are continuing their occupation of crimea and ongoing aggression against ukraine they are attempting to get western democracies including our own through election interference and they've used powerful weapons with his daughter in the united kingdom. they are perpetrating malicious cyber attacks. the brazenness of the maligned conduct. has a vigorous response. treasuries and russian sanction programs are among the most active and impactful. since january 2017 this administration has sanctioned 229 russian related individuals and entities for a broad range of opportunities.
7:44 am
twelve of which were sanctioned by that treasury office of foreign asset control. including a number this morning. the russian related members. in a number of different actions. in doing so we had targeted a who's who of the most prominent companies. these include russia's primary estate owned weapons trading companies one of the largest independent power companies in russia and a major russian oil company. our targets also include the heads of major estate owned banks and energy firms. as well as some of the closest associates. these figures include two affiliates as well as the senate
7:45 am
law. indeed those who deal with such persons risking targeted by our powerful sanction authorities sanctioning these russian individuals has made them radioactive. we have made clear to the world that those who choose to continue to do business with them they do so at their own peril. it was passed by a near unanimous vote demonstrated great results by congress to counter the malign activity and we share that result. as companies across the globe work to distance themselves our actions are imposing an unprecedented level of financial cluster on those supporting the agenda. as the impact of our russia related actions are felt far and wide.
7:46 am
indeed the treasury actions had impacted the financial interest of the targeted individuals and entities. they sanction alone have reduced the net worth of those individuals and their companies. other companies designated for their links have been forced to cut production. with the foreign commercial partners. in addition we had cut off cyber actors from the u.s. financial system and beyond including those providing the offensive cyber capabilities to the russian intelligence services and working on behalf of the kremlin to interfere with the 2016 u.s. election. in addition to sanctions we are strategically looking at this. to discuss the financial conduct
7:47 am
and a parting with international financial service. we regularly get engaged. especially those in europe to coordinate these efforts and augment the impact of our sanctions. and her other actions. by leveraging all of our authorities we are increasing financial pressure on russia to advance our national security priority while mitigating the clinical impact on the united states our european allies in the global economies. there is no question that we have imposed major costs on russia. the significant other actions and of her actions and her other financial measures must ultimately be measured in terms of the strategic impact. it has been checked by the knowledge that we can bring even
7:48 am
more economic pain to bear using our powerful way range of authority and that we will not hesitate to do so if the conduct does not end significantly. thank you. the ranking member brown. members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to discuss the ongoing efforts to mitigate risks to our nation's critical infrastructure. safeguarding cyberspace is a core movement in an area that i have an honor to leave -- lead. one of the strategic threats to the united states holding the national security and economic prosperity and integrity of our democracy and public health and safety risk. with both government and industry.
7:49 am
more crowded active and dangerous. in 2017 it was one of the most costly enacted in terms of the internet. in the malware incident. dhs. and our interagency partners also worked with industry to identify and alert on russian government alerts. they did not begin or end in 2017. the russian attempts are well and widely known. after their activities. with it 2018 midterm just round the around the corner we are working aggressively to support state and local efforts to secure elections. this partnership is representative of one of two core anchors in the deterrent strategy. and impose costs with strong cost with strong consequences
7:50 am
from militia behavior. my organization the national program protector is almost exclusively focused on defect. emphasizing the shared responsibility of cyber security across industry and government. we worked through partnerships. a longing the unique capabilities together. at value. and enable more effective security. we are focused on sharing information related to the threat and potential mitigation members. in conducting incident response. we manage these activities out of operational centers. that collaboration across the full range of stakeholders.
7:51 am
the national cyber security integration center operates at the intersection of private sector, state and local governments. international partners. law enforcement law enforcement intelligence and defense communities. it is his day-to-day cyber security risk management. as a steady-state capability. to address today's cyber security challenges. we also work with stakeholders for affinity groups. recently working with election officials all 50 states participate in what is the fastest growing program. the national risk management center. on understanding the risk in development. the national and economic security.
7:52 am
as longer-term strategic risk. providing across government and industry capability to address tomorrow's challenges. we will partner with coalition like the financial systemic analysis. aiming to break down sector -based silos. and the integrated strategies to drive that down. they have the necessary pools. it is stepping up the effort to defend the nation's critical infrastructure from the cyber activity we are working to better involve our activity. and before i close i would like to think congress for the
7:53 am
legislative progress thus far in strengthening dhs. now we must move onto the next step it would be the organization. and operational agency. with ongoing efforts of focal points for private sector and government stakeholder in support. we strongly support that. thank you for the opportunity to if. before the committee today. in light of our important role. with how they are employing the tools that congress has given us
7:54 am
in order to push back against the various activities. i will focus in particular on section 231. to implement it. in passing. congress made it very clear that the intentions were to preface russia to change. including in response to the effort to interpret beer in her own residential election. we have heard that message from congress loud and clear. i want to stress also that the sanction sanctioned tools have value in a broader arena and the geo political political strategy. this is an important scene for administration. the new national security strategy calls out the complex. warns about challengers that they have challenged it with china and russia. in the transnational threat
7:55 am
organization. they are actively competing against united states. and our allies and partners. similarly mister chairman. at the central challenge. it's a long-term strategic competition. it is increasingly clear. that china and russia want to shape a world consistent with their model. gaining veto authority. the national defense strategy notes that they are competing with us across all measures of power. in this mindset is one that we bring to approaching this. it has undertaken a campaign. in the attempt to compete with us. it gives us more tools as which to respond. transactions with the russian
7:56 am
arms industry. they should shun transactions of that sort. that is where the money is. the military equipment as one of the only competitive sectors. they fuel the activities. and they support russian development. so we use a sanctioned tools to go after those revenues. but more broadly russia continues to use its arms transaction. is not just about the money but the relationship that this creates.
7:57 am
at the activities and influence. that is something that we bring to section 231. we seek to cooperate with russia wherever we can. where we need to push back we do so. and we do so hard. and we've have a real success in using the availability of the sanctions. in deterring and inflating transactions deflating transactions with the arms business. with our ability to use those. that as billions of dollars that they will not get. and it will not spread. we have not yet had that impact and opportunity. in part because we are in the business of trying to make sure that those do not go forward.
7:58 am
we are making good progress and deflating in deterring that. we can certainly be there. i want to stress how important it is. and making sure the billions of dollars of transactions do not occur. i would ask that the chairman be submitted. through which we approach that. let me conclude making the point that we are applying these as a vigorous tool to make sure that we do as much as we can with those tools to undermine the ability has a way to accrue their own advantage. i'll be happy to talk about these. thank you mister chairman.
7:59 am
i will start with you. a number of you have said this. there had been a number of sanctions. with the industrial apparatus. what kind of sanctions had have the most impact. we had had well over 220 sanctions across the agency since the beginning of this administration. and the impact of the sanctions have been felt in a very important way. it's very close associates. we also designated entities that were 50% controlled.
8:00 am
we have seen a number of significant impacts. that surround themselves there are some very brave consequences. with the activities around the world. as you saw the net worth of the individuals who we designated as well as a net worth of a number of other ones. decreased substantially. they suffered great consequences we continue to see the impact of those designations. in a number of different ways. we've had very substantial recommendations. ..
8:01 am
8:02 am
and use the proceeds as loans to russian firms under sanction. does this abode to invest in russian sovereign debt undercut content and effectiveness of existing u.s. sanctions? >> pursuant to test the treasury department issued a report on russian sovereign debt earlier this year i know secretary mnuchin has commented on the report. i would leave it there. there continues to be concerned about ongoing investigation with russia as a general matter, very significantly declined since the beginning of this russia program. >> thank you. mr. krebs, the united states is
8:03 am
it its primary and special election season now. you mention in your testimony as a result of assessing activity in the 2016 election dhs is actually increasing awareness of potential vulnerabilities and providing capabilities to enhance u.s. and allied election infrastructure. what authority or other help does dhs and its stakeholders need to better secure use election infrastructure? >> thank you for the question. i think since 2016 we made significant progress in terms of securing america's election infrastructure. as i mentioned i think the one piece of legislation i need within my organization is cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency act. that will streamline my organization, make us more effective in terms of engaging our stakeholders. remember that my authorities are almost entirely voluntary and someone had to be able to do is
8:04 am
clearly articulate who i am, what it is that you and now i can do. the national protection and programs directorate doesn't really provide me that platform to describe those efforts. >> thank you. senator brown. >> ms. mandelker, in april our ambassador announced russian companies who helped syria make an public chemical weapons would be sanctioned on the sunday shows she said secretary mnuchin's quote will be announcing those monday if he hasn't already and who go directly to the sort of companies that we're dealing with equipment rented to assad and chemical weapons used. the next day the sanctions were pulled back reportedly on orders from the president. my question is this, when she spoke had enemies been identified and cleared through the usual interagency process? >> i'm not going to get into interagency discussions. as you may be aware, in april we
8:05 am
did designate in connection with her stereo authority. with designated other russian and its subsidiary banks,, designate other russian entities in connection with -- >> i'm sorry, the amount of time, the sanctions were pulled back that she announced, cracked? >> i'm not going to get into -- >> but the answer is yes or no. >> i'm not speaking this, the sanction of pulled back. i'm not asking that president trump do it personally. i'm just asking that sanctions were pulled back democrat? >> we did not announce additional syria related designations but we had such school in announced a number of very hard-pressed designations speeders i can't understand why you get to me. you don't want to go interagency discussions. the sanctions were or were not pulled back. she announced them. they didn't happen. that would suggest pulled back, stop, choose your own verb. you may not want to talk about
8:06 am
what happened in the interagency discussions but facts are facts, even today. >> again you're asking me to comment on what happened within the interagency. any particular species i'm not asking you for discussions within the interagency. i'm asking you did the interagency actually identify and cleared them, and what happened between her announcement and the inaction taken. but apparently you are not good after that. let me ask a question for you and start with mr. ford and back to ms. mandelker. authorities confiscate the last you have networked to compel russia disco back its aggressive behavior against u.s. and its allies. all three of you spoke. there's a lot of room for the administration just powerful authorities provided on corrupt oligarchs. it would spell out, mr. ford, what is your plan to ratchet up
8:07 am
pressure in the criminal in the short-term are to the election to deter future attacks? is a quintet of personal assets of putin and his cronies, is a sanctioning state-owned entities like the kremlin slush fund? is a russian sovereign wealth fund? what steps? >> thank you, senator. with respect to influencing russia's behavior there's several ways we try to approach this guy mentioned the one try to cut back their transactions influence in revenue. more broadly, i would like to make the point also that this is only, the objective is to train russia's behavior but evil russia's behavior not to prevent facets of wish that it would, we think these approaches were taking are having an impact in changing others' behavior towards russia in ways that will leave russia less able to engage in its ongoing activities. you will not have the resources, as many partners with which to which to work.
8:08 am
they would be less able to exercise that influenced even to the degree they still wish to engage in it. that's part of the chilled effect we want to achieve by economic reforms more broadly. it's not just that influenced russia directly. it is but having influenced upon the net impact of russian behavior in the aggregate across the international community. i'm not in a position to forecast exactly what steps we will take. we are putting a lot of emphasis both with our partners in conjunction with the partners and directly to the russians on the importance of them understanding that we are have the view that this kind of activity and productivity of the sort to which you referring were to occur we would continue to confront rush with painful, sharp and stern consequences. >> it's especially important to announce bluntly and aggressively ahead of time what
8:09 am
price putin will pay if he engages in attacks in our election? >> we are making it very clear that there will be consequences and painful ones is engage in additional unacceptable conduct. we think it's important not to be too specific about that. this is not a game of our casting of trying to encourage the kremlin but it is again in which we're making clear this behavior is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. we are trying to do that mindful of all of the things with which we agree with congress. it's been very clear in talking about passing legislation that there's a powerful desire in congress which we shared to signal that russia's maligned activities are unacceptable and try to deter them in future. we understand and agree with what appears to be congresses clearview that it is more to do that anyways that do not have graven unclear consequences or other aspects of our u.s. interest, whether that is issues of u.s. jobs and the economy and competitiveness or the relationship we need to maintain
8:10 am
without was the partners and friends around the world, including that are important to us with respect to russia policy. we are trying to find a sweet spot between all these competing approaches and were grateful for the tools congress has given us. >> senator kennedy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleagues for letting me jump the line here. ms. mandelker, and my pronouncing your name right? >> yes, senator. >> does mr. putin personally on assets in the united states? >> senator, i would defer to my colleagues in the defense come in the intelligence community and i would be happy to talk to them about providing you a briefing on the subject. >> well, they are not here but you are. so let me ask you again. does mr. putin personally on assets in the united states?
8:11 am
>> again the senator, that's that something that we can discuss and open a public setting but we would be happy to sit in with you and provide a classified briefing with our intelligence community colleagues. >> mr. krebs, do you have anything to add to that? >> no, sir. >> how about you? >> no senator. >> okay. if he did it personally on assets in the united states, why would we not ask a sanction consider seizing them, hypothetically? >> hypothetically, senator, if any russian oligarch or senior leader had assets in the united states of course that's an action that we would consider undertaking, assuming it's within our legal authorities to do so. >> well, this is just my
8:12 am
opinion, but here's what i think. i think mr. putin does on assets in the united states, and i think the treasury knows what those assets are. and whether we do it in a classified or unclassified setting, that's above my pay grade, but i would like us to have a frank and honest discussion about the ramifications of seizing those assets. would you object to that? >> not at all, senator. >> okay. last question. dr. ford, let's suppose that the president of the united states came to you and said, look, i've had enough. crimea, ukraine, syria, chemical weapons, meddling in american elections. i want to bring, i hate to do t
8:13 am
by want to bring the russian economy to its knees. how would you do that? >> senator, i'm afraid i'm not enough of an economist to have a real crisp off-the-cuff answer for you. i certainly would hope and expect that we would approach any challenge th the president gives us with the kind -- >> i'm going to interrupt. i'm going to keep come sounds like you are not going to answer, so no offense so keep moving. mr. krebs? >> i would have to defer to the other exper experts. we are focused on defending -- >> that's there. i appreciate your canvas. ms. mandelker? >> senator, were we to have any conversation along those lines of course we would want to consider what those global ramifications would be taking those kinds of actions. as of already mention speedy
8:14 am
let's put the global ramifications to the side for a moment though. your task is to bring the economy to its knees. how would you do that? >> i don't think you can have a discussion about how to bring russia's economy to its knees without having a full understanding of what the global consequences would be in taking certain kinds of action. we've taken -- >> how about telling me what you would do and then telling me the consequences so we don't get the two mixed up? >> again, senator, with taken a number of very aggressive actions targeting the russian economy. >> i know that but the economy has been brought to its knees. just look, i don't use my time. you are not going int going to e question, just telling. >> again, i would be happy to have this conversation with you about the bright i think it's important that in any conversation where we are talking about very significant actions, we also have an understanding with the global consequences would be.
8:15 am
i think that's the response speed i'm just asking you to tell me those. i'm out of time. sorry, mr. chairman. sorry, guys, i couldn't do any better. i tried to get answers. >> senator menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just came back from our senate foreign relations committee which is also have a hearing on u.s.-russian policy. while the committee deals with foreign policy, this committee jurisdiction over economic tools to promote our foreign policy is included for so i today soon. let me just ask you all, clearly that notwithstanding what the congress has passed into law, what the administration has forced through your own testimony, elements of that law, that it's fair to say, isn't it, that russia has not deterred, it's been deterred in its actions and maligned activities? is that a fair statement? >> i think, senator, we're seeing a number of consequences
8:16 am
as a result of an impasse as a result of the actions that we've taken. there's no question we continue to see russian maligned activity and -- >> microsoft announced there are attacks on the united states senate, and from conservative institutions. that's a continuing action. as far as i know russian is still annexing crimea and engage with regular forces in eastern ukraine. as far as i know russia is propping up the side in syria and i could go down through a list. so for the most part i think would be fair to say -- assad -- russians not been deterred. >> i think it's very fair to say russia's continue to engage in a wide range of maligned activities that causes us great concern. >> okay. so on that we are agreed. now, that is something that is a reality, obviously what we do and not all the efforts of congress and the administration today, has not deterred them in
8:17 am
these aligned -- maligned activities which would like to see. i know that senator graham and i have legislation called the defendant american security trump criminal aggression. i know that my colleagues on the committee with senator rubio also has the deter act. i'm sure there are other initiatives may be the chairman is taking some with senator corker. prick bottom line is instead of telling us what's wrong with these ideas and piece of legislation, why don't you tell us what in fact, we can do to turn up the pressure on moscow that we are not? >> senator, in the last year as you've seen with taken a number of very aggressive actions in connection with the russian sanctions programs including a number of actions under -- >> i don't need you to regurgitate and even mutombo tony what you've done. what you've done which is clinically great has not moved the ball and we would like to see. so what i'm saying, it's a
8:18 am
confrontation question. the question of congress is going to act. you might as will know that. i've been through administration both democratic and republican. who did want to see sanctions. at the end of a congress acted in many of them subsequently learn that what we did was the best tools they had to try move foreign policy. it's going to act. i would rather be back in a way that has your insights about what would be helpful. but if you fail to provide insights then we will provide you with a law that ultimately will take place without incident. incident. that's all i'm thinking here. so if you're telling me, and i'm asking this question is collective, there's nothing more that we can do than what we're doing, if that's the answer, that means that russia will continue to do all the things i said before, nothing more that we can do and what we doing will change the course and that's a sad state of events for not only our country but for the worker is that what you're telling me.
8:19 am
>> we would be happy to work with you and piece of legislation. we have a broad range of legislation place that we've been -- >> with all due respect i for just say this. you are very good repeating the same things. it doesn't help me. let me ask you this. the expectation among senators that you can change the post sanctions on oligarchs but it seems some of us you've decided to diminish pressure. you haven't designated in the oligarchs since april 6. you have delisted estonia banks and other reports you may delist others. pick what signal does that send to the kremlin? were told -- these actions can be more aligned with president accommodating and disturbing rhetoric than a tougher approach to the kremlin. why haven't you listed in the oligarchs since april 6 and wired just listing these other entities? >> we had designated a number of additional russian related entities since april 6. it's a very active program for us including --
8:20 am
>> i mention specifically oligarchs, not entities. >> i'm not going to preview what her plans are but we continue to look carefully at the oligarchs report and it continues to inform our actions. >> secretary ford, let me, you haven't -- you are delisting people. i understand your office delisted section 231. convince me that your leverage to convince individuals to not purchase russian defense equipment has somehow strengthen the new waiver provision included in the new national defense authorization act. you haven't impose one sanction under this provision, not the new provision. you haven't impose one sanction under section 231. why? >> senator, what we have been doing, unless and until something, of course under the statute has been significant transaction. we speed is have been both.
8:21 am
>> there's no determination of our significance has been major. it's important to stress our focus has been as indicated upon making sure as best we can transactions don't occur. if we do we will evaluate it and reach a determination as quickly as the bureaucratic process permits. it is important to how we are approaching this to make sure that our interlocutors understand that wha what we tryg to do is, in fact, implement our own priorities and congresses priorities upon doing two things simultaneously. one, of course we need, it's imperative to do so, we need to make sure that russia feels pressure from it. the objective is to change russia's behavior and pain refill. the pain is against russia not against our friends at alice. we understand congress has been clear and passing catsa that this needs to be done anyway that it is mindful of the importance of protecting the relationships that we have and
8:22 am
we need in our diplomas and a foreign relations and our national security fence around the world with people, people who may have had engagement with the russian arms business but and we don't want to so with the way our relationship with. we are trying to do those two things at the same time. >> senator scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the panel for being here and i want to echo the comments of the ranking member, the chairman and many of the senators. this reflects the importance of finding ways to constrain russian aggression as it relates to our country. and it seems like too many of us that our efforts have just not been effective enough. if you look at from 2014 and forward, the sanctions, we sanction hundreds of russian entities in response to annexation of crimea, their human rights abuses, cyber attacks, their support of the assad regime. proliferation, the list continue to go on and on and on to the russian aggression and yet there
8:23 am
is so little that we can show for our efforts of sanctioning of russia. i have two questions one is about anderson the certain sections of catsa that of yet to be of limited, and what steps we can take to ensure that our policies are able to achieve the desired outcome. the first question. the second question is why we look at the implementation of more sections of catsa, how do we protect our american businesses as relates to the negative impact that will come from it. so why do stand that all are in an incredibly sensitive position trying to do two things that are actually not mutually exclusive but really weigh heavily on one another. the challenge senator kennedys question that it's really a simple answer frankly. it's 70% of russia's exports or any energy sector seems to me that the clear simple answer is
8:24 am
that if you wanted to have the most impact, has the ability to cripple the economy, that the answer is in the energy sector. perhaps the challenge is it that the energy sector represents the sector that many of our allies in europe depend heavily on. so it does make your task challenging but the fact of the matter is that there is a very simple, clear, concise answer to senator kennedy's question, which is that it's 70% of the russian economy, perhaps not 70, maybe 68%, flows to the energy sector, the editor simple. i'm not quite sure we are having such a difficult time answering some questions. we seem to be more invasive than helpful and our desire to understand and appreciate the magnitude of our actions on the russian economy. and when there are sections given section 224 that you
8:25 am
specifically with crude oil exports, the answers all the same, that we haven't done much in those sections. i've come back to my original question is, and that is if we look at catsa, how can we do more come seems like i've just given you a list of options on doing more, and why are we not? and his answer, my second question, the impact on our businesses is grading headwind on our ability to impose more sanctions and do more damage to the russian economy because we are afraid of what it does to our businesses and to our allies? >> thank you for your question. just with respect to the very specific provisions of catsa, you may be aware we have had designated over 160 entities and individuals and authorities are either subject to specific provision of catsa or executive
8:26 am
orders that and codified by catsa. so our desire to implement an hour extrusion of the implementation of catsa is very strong. they specifically in the energy sector, not only have we designated entities under our energy authorities but russia's energy sector is subject to two directors, directed to and for that were started in the obama administration which we have tightened in this administration and we've seen significant impact as a result of those designations think you asked about businesses, well, exxon announced earlier they were withdrawing from joint venture projects in russia. similarly we heard it was announced that they were unable to complete certain projects in the black sea because of our sanctions bigger unable to get the kind of equipment and technology that they did in order to do so. >> i have 25 seconds left in the chairman of recalled 1 million
8:27 am
for going over time. i do want to be the second number so i won't go over time by that much. i want to say that perhaps you would invest all of our time more wisely if we talk about the interconnectedness of the global economy and how i times that russia's working with saudi arabia output in order for us to more positive impact on iran, withdrawing from jcpoa we have more global perspective on the challenges and consequences and the complexities of the task at hand and with have more productive time in understanding and appreciating the challenges that you face. and at the sain same time be abo talk to our constituents about the challenges that we face, especially as the "wall street journal" today reported that russian hackers target certain groups which suggests only that whatever we are doing is not
8:28 am
enough. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator tester. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you all for being here and i appreciate your testimony, although it would be nice to get answers to the questions. imfs frustrated as the folks who come before me. so let me ask you this, ms. mandelker, and it's an odd question because i don't know the answer to it. say we have 10 million-dollar range and summer once to launder money for $20 million and they turn around and sell it for $15 million. is that money then laundered? >> senator, under those circumstances this sounds like a situation where money was laundered. >> okay. is that legal? >> that come here in the united states that could potentially be a violation of our money laundering laws. >> okay, so do we come is that something that we do, we quite a
8:29 am
folks are trying to launder money? is that something the treasury department does? >> absolutely, senator. the criminal authorities of the justice department's authorities. we go after illicit activity, money laundering all over the world in a variety of different ways. >> can you get back to me how many money-laundering episodes in the last five years have occurred and how many have been actually prosecuted? >> i can come in terms of prosecutions -- >> determined and turned over to the department of justice. how about that way for? committee sample have happened in the last five years? how many have been brought forth in the last five years by the department treasury? not prosecuted but just pointed out. >> akin to the number. we worked speeders can you give me a number if you go back to your office invited and? >> it would depend on its civic
8:30 am
-- >> no no, no. look, look, we had one of the series in a classified session that was worthless. it wasn't worthless because of the term and ranking member. you guys have filibuster down to an art. i did want to know the answer to the question. do you have the number, yes or no? >> is -- >> do you have never? >> i want to make spears i want to know the number of money-laundering episodes the department treasure has turned over to the department of justice in the last five years. not ten, not 20, not 30. five, that's it. >> again, as you may be aware that since been speeded i'm not aware. i just want to know how many. >> i would have to go back -- >> okay, go back and you will giving that information? >> but i just wanted to clear what it is that we do. we follow, we traced and we track mind laundered all over the world. we are also speeded i just want to know but the stuff that happens in the united states. that's easier yet. >> let me go back and see what we can do to answer your question.
8:31 am
>> i appreciate that very, very much. mr. krebs, you said in answer to that humans question that you made significant progress since 2016 election -- chairman's bill question. can you give me a list of what you done to make our election more secure? >> yes. technical support, incident response. >> and envied in the to every state in union? >> we work particularly for the election infrastructure. we work with all 50 states that we provide cyber remote scanning keep it was in 36 states. >> can you go back to office in sydney a list of what you done in montana specifically? >> we can give you everything. >> give me a sheet of paper. i don't need a briefing. the think you've done a montana to help month and have more security election cycle. >> we will follow. >> just a suggestion, it might not hurt to do that to every senator who is here. i see donnelly is nodding his head so you can do the for indiana. >> we do need, there's a certain degree of confidentiality on
8:32 am
every -- >> all, come on. look look look. if these guys are through screen with a folder machines, tell if a fixie. this is that confidence in our election system. doing what he did last cycle to promote communism and destroy democracy, i think the united states senate needs to know this stuff. >> i agree. yes, sir. >> just give us the information. >> yes, sir. >> can anybody tell me why putin's ownership of anything in this country is in the public information? >> again, senator, as an agenda for we be happy to sit at and have -- >> just tell me. why? what national security risk is that. >> was again come any discussion about where assets are in the united states or elsewhere are either classified or not something we would discuss any kind of an open session. >> you do know you can go down to the courthouse and find out how much land i own?
8:33 am
do you know that? why is putin different? >> i can senator, at a want to talk publicly about what assets are here or anywhere in the world because there are a number different reasons. >> yes or no doesn't exactly, does that dictate section, township and range. a yes or no just as this, he owns property here. >> i'm not aware of any title or deed that would have mr. putin stand on here in the united states but again -- >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator cotton. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for a pmq. i hope it is clear from the question so far that we have bipartisan agreement about the threat that russia poses to the market and are interested it's good to have that agreement now that we lacked for many years. the last administration it is russia was searching, to invade crimea and waging war in the
8:34 am
ukraine and beating the united states diplomat on the doorstep our embassy and russian and flagrantly violating the open skies treaty and flagrantly violating the intermediate range of nuclear forces treaty, and a whole host of other maligned activities come that we heard a lot to get russia is still not deterred from these things that i would agree with that. when you do take additional action we haven't heard much about the impact the steps this administration has taken versus the last administration. in particular, after the 2016 election. some members of the last administration said they didn't want to take provocative steps in the fall of 2016 because they feared that vladimir putin and russia's intel service sources t take additional steps to undermine voter registration systems are vote tabulation systems. but after the election the administration picked out a few
8:35 am
russian diplomats that might not surprise you to know that those on perhaps russian spies, close two russian vacation homes and imposed sanctions on two russian intelligence services. ms. mandelker, how much money did the united states government get from those intelligence services? >> senator, i'm not aware of assets that were lost as a result of that. >> because russian intelligence service did not keep money and the united states banking system? >> again, that's a something i would discuss publicly but rest assured the designations that we've had in this administration had that far wide-ranging impacts in a variety of different ways. >> to say nothing of nonsanctioned activities, for instance, like encouraging our nato partners to spend more money, expanding our nuclear arsenals come spend the moment a ballistic missile defenses, provided the antitank missile ukraine's government begged so long to receive.
8:36 am
congress has also learned over the last 18 months at the was a serious in agency conversation in november and december of what he 16 about imposing tougher sanctions on russia. in fact, i understand that the staff at the treasury department worked up a whole host of sectoral sanctions and specific sanctions against russian companies like tess persky lapsed but those were strongly opposed by secretary kerry jack lew, susan rice and april haynes. ms. mandelker, can you explain why secretary lew opposed taking tougher action after the election as election? not before the election, after the election? >> senator, i wasn't in the administration of course there you are a representative. show has continuity files. >> what i can tell you is that as a party made clear today we have gone after very significant and impactful designations in
8:37 am
connection with russia's election interference, in connection with their cyber attacks come in connection with our ongoing occupation of crimea and the like, and we have seen those designations result in very impactful actions, again, some of putin's close allies and partners, his senior foreign official, officials in his administration bequeathing companies who try to get into crimea come have a very heavy cost impose upon them when we sanction them. we have cut off, thick cut off their ability to do business elsewhere in the world. what i can do speak to the very heavy cost impact of the designations we've had. they have been substantial and i was a farmer substantial than those that were issued right into the after the november speedy it would be nice to know what secretary lew believe that i want president obama accepted his opinion. one final question about a
8:38 am
gentleman you mentioned, russian oligarchs who our government has sanction. you also sanction numerous companies he runs our heads. we now know, in fact, we have e-mails right here that a been released by the congress between christopher steele, who compiled what jim comey called a salacious and unverified dossier, and assumed the department of justice official in the obama administration where christopher steele was advocating on behalf of of him being in admitted into the united states. christopher way from the fbi director would not address the question i centered in a public hearing earlier this year about whether christopher c was working for the russian at the time. by all appearances he is working for him. his christopher steele and dismisses the kind into the our subcontractor or sanction russian oligarchs that you have the authority to sanction under
8:39 am
united states? >> unbuckled to talk to any particular individual but he has been designated and that designation is subject to secondary sanctions. what we've seen as a result of that and other sanctions against these oligarchs is they have become radioactive as the world understand that any entities that they touch may similarly face severe consequences. >> one final question. yes or no, question about general legal principle. do you have the authority under catsa to sanction professional service providers of sanction russian oligarchs, lawyers, lobbyists, financial advisors and so forth? >> we would likely have that authority. >> thank you. >> senator warner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate the witnesses testimony. i think the indication from microsoft today, ongoing russian targeting of our elections at our systems is showing that this
8:40 am
is not something that's in the rearview mirror. the truth is manipulate social media as both cheap and effective, and putin and his cronies realize that i think it reinforces, if there's one message about be taken out of the street is that we all need to stay focused. that focus ought to extend, and i have some sympathy for you, mr. krebs come in terms of trying to make sure our state and local election partners take this message seriously and recognize this is not all in the rearview mirror, that none of these activity stopped in 2016. they are ongoing and this is an ongoing threat. i'm take the concerned about that last mile issue of even if we notify, whether then take action. ms. mandelker, as indicated to you before hand and one of the things our intel committee investigation is looking back into in terms of russian activities, we need your assistance.
8:41 am
so i need your public commitment today that those outstanding document request we have sent will be met in a timely manner. >> senator, as you know we produce thousands of documents speedy but not all of the documents. will you meet are by person request for those documents? >> absolutely. >> there's been a buzzfeed story that says they do such sums as documents will not be turned over to the committee. we reput repeat that story and d that all documents that the commission requested will be turned over to the committee. >> i'm not aware that story but i can assure that we will continue to produce documents. >> and a timely manner within the next 30 days, 60 days? >> i would have to consult speak many to documents have been requested literally for months. >> we will continue to produce those documents on top of the thousands. [speaking in native tongue] and a process so we cannot -- we are eight months behind some of these document requests. >> we will continue to provide the. >> one of the things we've made a formal request in the past i want to reiterate in a public forum, because of the nature of
8:42 am
some of these documents, fairly complicated, we need your offices technical assistance in terms of interpretation of the documents. what you provide that assistance? >> let me just add to my last response, i'm told we have document production that will be providing today and as i i mentioned before they were happy to provide additional assistance. >> what we need is that technical assistance to sort through this trip i appreciate that. mr. krebs, again, i mentioned and you indicated you got only voluntary ability to work with those on the front line. one of the things i have grave concerns about, any normal white house with our country has been attacked, as it has been, there is bipartisan consensus, that would be someone designated in the white house as election security top man are some designate on the national security council as making this a top priority. one of the things that is been
8:43 am
extraordinary disturbing to me is we've had repeatedly top intelligence officials on the trump administration indicate to us that they had not been told that election security ought to be a top priority. and that raises huge concerns to me. recognizing you are trying to do best at dhs, one of the questions, i have a series of questions which are recognized our short amount of time. is there any intention, we have sanctioned the ira officers indicated by the miller indictments. is any efforts indicate or to sanctions the 12 gru officers that were also designated in the mueller indictments? >> senator, as you are overly sanction number of individuals connected to the gru and ssb. fact some of the sanctions issued this morning was specifically connection to the relationship to the fsb. we did designate -- >> the ira but not some of the 12 gru. >> we are closer look at that indictment. i can't preview what our plans
8:44 am
are at rest assured speedy all i would say is it would help i think the american public as a sanction these bad actors and these bad actors identities in a case that was built against was provided by the actions and working for the special prosecutor. it would do a great deal of benefit to the american public in terms of the seriousness of this threat is the president of the united states would not on a daily basis denigrate the mueller investigation and call it a witch hunt. an investigation that is created 30+ indictments come a number of of guilty pleas and obviously has been a very valuable tool in identifying these bad actors who in the past on an ongoing basis try to interfere in our election activities. mr. krebs, do you have indication of who attacked senator mccaskill activities, other elected officials? and what level of competence do have in terms of overall russian activities towards current city elected officials and electionsr
8:45 am
elections that are coming up in the next few months? >> to the second question, i certainly think congress is a target for foreign intelligence collection, just based on your role in policy formation. so there are general espionage and foreign intelligence collection concerns there with owithout a midterm or presidential election coming up across the horizon. whether it's mccaskill or the recent announcement, they have been in contact as understand what doj and fbi. we had conversation with microsoft to get a better understanding of what they saw that enable them to take action in terms of a formal attribution from the government. i would have to defer to the intelligence community but again rest assured, we are engaging on a day-to-day basis with the senate cio, the house cio, committees and encourage you to encourage your staff to work with the department of homeland security, and more than that, when you do go back to district or to hold states, please
8:46 am
encourage your state and local officials to work with the department of homeland security on election security matters. >> i think that's important thing to make sure that as you contact states that you indicate that this is an ongoing threat. it did not end in 2016 and, unfortunately, some of your communications to state when the last week or so have not had that kind of clarity. >> i am happy to follow up. >> tried to if i could i just want to reinforce senator warren, the importance, admonition and request how important these document are so they may be turned over on a timely manner consistent to. >> we appreciate that there is a major where dropping and other production today. we have staff who have been working to get these requests out quickly. >> senator moran. >> chairman, thank you very much. what dreck the first question to any and all. can you identify changes in russian behavior that have occurred since the summit
8:47 am
between president trump and president putin in helsinki? different behavior by russia and before the summit. >> i don't have anything to add. >> anyone? >> senator, i would ask that any kind of question like that be addressed in a closed session. >> we had a closed session and i share the view of the senator from montana, giving answers in a close session is no easier than getting answers that an open session. ms. mandelker, your unwillingness to answer the question, one of the things i thought would come from the string is a recommendation, recent recommendation of what congress might consider legislatively for additional sanctions. i have not reached any conclusion that additional sanctions are beneficial. i don't know the answer to that question but i would've thought that you could of been able to give us ideas of what we might look at or pursue in cooperation with you and the administration.
8:48 am
and i could take from your unwillingness to answer that kind of question that there is an opposition by the administration to additional sanctions? i what's a better explanation? >> out for not. as the opposition to sanctions. as a nation we designate well over 200 individuals and companies and connection speed is i'm talking about additional sanctions, something we look at in this committee. >> additional sanctions were issued just this morning pretensions what additional authorities we may need, we already have through catsa and through friday at different executive orders brought authorities to talk at a big sector of the russian economies to go after the russian oligarchs, to go after russian malicious cyber activities. we've been in a number of other areas. in fact, as i've already mentioned we've targeted not only a number of very significant russian companies can we've targeted the chairs of those companies making much more
8:49 am
difficult for them to operate in the world. we would be happy to sit and talk to cops about any proposed legislation, but we do have significant and substantial authorities already on the book. >> maybe that's the answer the question, it's not what you been able to do but answer, what more do you need is nothing that's known at the moment but you consult with congress, if we come up with an idea that might take away from the testimony. i generally agree with senator cotton we ought to be looking at other issues in addition certainly, our relationship with nato, economic alliances around the globe, resolving our trade differences with other countries so that we are unified, a list is longer than sanctions. we generally our focus on sanctions in this committee butt i take it from your answer that today you believe you have the necessary authority to combat what we're trying to combat with russian behavior. is that a fair assessment? >> yes, senator we are happy --
8:50 am
>> okay. >> i agree with you this is a ta wholeheartedly approach. sanctions alone will not solve the problem and the submissions has undertaken a number of additional activities in connection with the russians threat. >> thank you very much. the administration i think this is probably i don't who this is for, the administration has called for a complete cutoff of iranian petroleum import by november. that seems to be just in time for winter. does that stand to reason that i will push europe and others to be more dependent upon russian oil and natural gas, and is a coordination on the sanctions that we're proposing pursuing with iran and sanctions went in place with russia or proposing with russian? >> absolutely there is in agency coordination with the state of heaven, department of energy and our closest allies and partners. >> mr. krebs, your testimony you
8:51 am
note leadership role that the department plays in conducting elections, courtney efforts to assess and mitigate risks, within this structure come dhs also plays an important role in sharing information with election officials. i visited with county clerks, election offices in kansas, with personal with a secretary of state office of economics oversight and management of elections in our state. what steps has dhs taken to ensure that information intelligence he shared with local officials? my general impression is that while there's concern by election officials, they don't know the direct nature of any threat. >> so we have prioritized security clearances for state and local election officials. i think right now we're up to about 92 and that includes every single state. but most important speech election officials, some at the state level? >> yes, sir, chief election
8:52 am
official in each state and a working our way down to the county level. i don't think we'll get to the cantaloupe entrances specific clearances because our imperative is to bring information out of the classified spaces as rapidly as possible and your actionable information so any, doesn't matter what county or locality their income happy of information from dhs that is pulled jonathan on the intelligence community that they can act on. our mission is to shorten that time. we are working on clearances,, but one poorly where trying to convene information sharing. i mentioned we are all 50 states and pushing 1000 local jurisdiction. the challenge is that are close to 10,000 election jurisdictions nationwide. so while we have what's probably the fastest growing most accessible, we still have a pretty big gap to fill. we are working through what's was mention by senator warren
8:53 am
earlier, the last mocha we have a last mile initiative where we are developing tailored guidance to every single county if they would like it across this country. that will include how to sign up, how to participate in incident response and tabletop exercise. >> what is the timeframe for that? >> if they are marketing this aggressively now, we've already gotten through the chute. we have 22, four states, we have 22 more states right now. with the capacity by the midterm, if every single state asks for a last mile, it supposedly post which are which is and we will share it with you to mark and i close setting, we can do all 50 states is asked by the midterm. >> thank you. >> senator donnelly. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to the witnesses. mr. krebs, have you reviewed the security of election in indiana
8:54 am
specifically? >> i personally have not but we do work with the state of indiana, yes, sir. >> do you know if there any reports in regards to your department and what is been done in terms of hardening and securing indiana's election for the upcoming election? >> we certainly have a profile on that date and a record of engagement and how we've engaged with the state. >> is that direct contact twin agencieagency and indiana? >> i'm sorry? >> with that list all the direct contacts you that back and forth speedy yes, sir, we track that. >> what i like to do is get a a copy of all of that so that we know, on the states and that we can be helpful to our states to make sure that they get everything they need a last mile program, all of these things put in place so that we have the most secure possible election. obviously that only my state but across the country. >> we can engage and provide you up to what were doing,
8:55 am
particularly nationwide but i do need to reinforce the fact that there is a level of confidentiality because my authorities are voluntary. i'm in entirely dependent position upon the state of local jurisdiction to come to me and bring information. and if i'm in a position where i am hosting or sharing what's confidential information, this is just like attorney-client privilege. i am the attorney, they are the claim. they on the privilege the what is up to the parker for -- >> in your best judgment, you know, we'd like to see what has been done to make sure that were taking as many steps as possible in our state to secure the election. ms. mandelker, at the helsinki summit, do you know if the subject of sanctions was discussed between president trump and vladimir putin? >> senator, i'm not aware of was not the sanctions was discussed in that meeting, between the two of them, but i believe the
8:56 am
president has addressed -- >> i'm not asking about the president duda i'm asking you. do you have any knowledge of what was discussed in that summit between the president and vladimir putin, since you are the one who implements the very sanctions that might've been discussed? >> senator, i know the president has speedy i' up asking, were yu given a briefing as to what was discussed regarding sanctions in that summit meeting? >> senator, we haven't had an agency discussions following the speedy were you told what was discussed between the president and between vladimir putin regarding sanctions? were you given a reading as to everything that was discussed consensual and one who enforces sanctions? >> we have had discussions following the helsinki summit about what was addressed in the summit, and my mandate has been the same since the summit which is to continue to deploy impactful sanctions. >> were you told whether not the
8:57 am
president and vladimir putin discussed sanctions? >> again, senator, we had -- >> that's a simple question, yes or no. either you were told or you were not. >> again speeded the you know if the subject was discussed? >> secretary pompeo has addressed what was discussed in helsinki. i was not there. we have had an agency discussions about the helsinki summit. >> i will try one more time. this is about as simple as it gets. you can go, did you tighten your shoe or not, yes or no? did you hear whether or not sanctions were discussed in this meeting, yes or no? do you know if they would discuss or not? >> i don't know the specifics of what they discussed sanctions at that meeting but i think the president has publicly discussed his conversations with mr. putin. >> you are in charge of implement sanctions. >> what i can tell you is following the helsinki summit my mandate remained the same can which is to continue to impose sanctions to counter russia's
8:58 am
maligned behavior, and we've done that in full force. >> the fact is russia is still in syria. they have not changed their behavior. they are still in ukraine. they are so using cyber attacks pickiest of meddling in elections. they're preparing to meddle in the upcoming election. they are still violating the inf treaty. this is all taking place while we have sanctions in place, which apparently have had no effect on them. as you look at this, what sanctions would have the most effect to start to turn this behavior around? let me ask you one of the question. i'm running out of time here. i know we're trying to run a tight. who do you need to get approval from to take for the sanctions steps? >> senator, speedy there's got to be somebody. >> sure. most sanctions, pecking order or statute i may typically by the
8:59 am
secretary of the treasury in consultation with the secretary of defense. >> has the secretary approved that? >> absolutely. we issued sanctions this point a connection with russia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator perdue. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for your patience. first of all i want to make a comment about the closed classified briefing we had on july 31. i must have attended a given meeting, mr. chairman, but i got a lot out of that meeting. those today who said we got no interest but i think we address one thing in a close reading. i'd like to on today known that were in an open environment. ms. mandelker, for stolen clarify couple of things. are you familiar with the russian primary reserve fund that they have just closed down? >> in general, but not speedy they just closed on their on thy reserve fund. they're using their welfare reserve fund for any profits as
9:00 am
you say, above $70 a barrel, let's say say on the oil sector. so we're beginning to have some impact but it hasn't changed behavior yet and here's my question. with the interconnectivity of the global economy, if we put sanctions on russia, there's a trading partner that gets hit by that as well. today there's a study out in german by the institute of world economy that says about 40% of the detriment of a sanction is borne by the trading partners across 37 countries that are dealing with russia and that sends two messages i don't think, number one will continue to this. is that true? >> i can't verify the particular statistics but i can tell you there's no question when you post sanctions in particular types of entities in russia, there are, those impacts are felt elsewhere.
9:01 am
..
9:02 am
. that's a fact. >> i agree that those are different complex problems. >>en that the sanctioning regime is not an end-all. you've already said it's got to be a whole government. we haven't talked enough about that today. are you intergreating with other facets of the administration for an ultimate outcome, that is a change in behavior in russia. >> absolutely, senator. >> what other agencies do you guys integrate with in terms of trying to change behavior in russia? >> we work closely with the state department. we work closely with the intelligence community.
9:03 am
we work with the department of homeland security and others. >> so, secretary ford, with russia has now dumped about 90 billion of u.s. treasuries and doing everything to prepare for whatever the next sanction regime efforts that we might make. what efforts are you aware of that russia are trying to do to prepare? are there things that we can do to counter that prior to the issuing of further sanctions? >> thank you for the question, senator. i think in an open session, i think it's probably unwise to get into specifics. . >> i understand. >> it's safe to assume that the kremlin is preparing for further russian sanctions and if they continue to do the kind of things that they've done that have drawn sanctions in the past that we'll continue to react to that. >> are woo he -- we in the state department working with our allies.
9:04 am
are we in a comfortable position that they're going to stay with us. particularly when we talk about nordstream? are the russians allies ranking in there with us and how do you project that as we get further into the sanctioning effort? >> welcome, that's an ongoing piece of the diplomatic challenge. we, of course, hope that people will hang with us in this. we think that we've done a pretty good job of keeping the team together so far. one example is the ongoing engagement that we've had with our european friends ensuring the continued rollover of sanctions against russia for crimea. this is the kind of thing which we've spent a lot of time to go. you mentioned mitigating impact on the u.s. economy, for example. one of the things that we did, when a couple of weeks ago we issued sanctions against russia for its chemical weapons attack in the u.k. if we had a series of-- the most significant piece of that had to do with an export of national secure controlled
9:05 am
items, presumption of denial from the united states. one of the carveouts that we had from that in an effort to specifically try to take into consideration, sir, is carve out for national security exports to u.s. companies operating in russia so we're not hurting our people in russia and we had a carve out for russians employed by u.s. companies in the united states, for example. so we're mindful of those facts and try to mitigate those. >> thank you. >> senator jones. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'd like a real quick-- something that i've been concerned about, i hear in the classified meetings and i hear today and i see all of the issues that are going and all the sanctions being imposed and the impact, the financial impact and everything, but, yet, we're not hearing as much of the deterrent, the impact and the effectiveness of the deterrent and i'm curious as to, if i can, has the president's comments about all of this being a hoax and
9:06 am
thinking like that, is that undermining your efforts? is putin trying to just wait it out and hoping the president will have his way? is that undermining your efforts? >> i think to the contrary, senators. you look at the wide range of activities that this administration has undertaken under the direction of the president, including the very significant sanctions we've been able to launch, including the expulsion of 60 russians out of our country, including the closing of russian entities in the united states. what russia says is a very-- is a united states that's very aggressive. >> yeah, but when the president-- with the president standing right next to mr. putin and talking about hoaxes on twitter, it just seems to undermine that, but that's okay. i understand and i understand the response. i would like to ask you briefly, i know in my election in december dhs had officials on the ground in case there was some problems.
9:07 am
we had seen some issues with bots and other things coming up, but apparently there was not a lot of activity that day, at least as far as the russians were concerned. my-- i want to kind of follow up on what senator tester was asking. and are you going to be able to provide that kind of support this coming november for 50 states? and what kind of support would that look like? are you focusing on specific response threats? what are we going to see from dhs on election day in november of this year? >> thank you for the question. absolutely. across the 50 states, if requested, we will deploy our personnel, our field personnel, we have protected security advisors, cyber security advisors across the country and they will be in response cells and siting alongside the homeland security advisors. and we'll deploy that again tomorrow midterms. we ran through this process
9:08 am
last week. we had table top the vote, which was a nationwide table top exercise, three-day exercise, ran through scenarios, hacking of election infrastructure as well as foreign information operations and a couple of take aways from that, just to again, when you go home, please encourage your state and local officials to work with us. but there's a -- there is a need, as i mentioned in our dependence position, we need more information as soon as it comes up. this is the if you see something, say something mantra applies here as well. we need state and local to alert us as quickly and early as possible so we can stitch together that national picture. and a few things we'll look at. our national cyber security integrations center in a war room posture that day and we'll have a national situational awareness room where state and local officials can get onto
9:09 am
basically a web chat, something like that, and they can share information across the country. so, again, if they see anything, they can put it up on the-- in the situational awareness room and they can share information and visibility, get that common operating picture of our elections security posture. >> and i want to follow up real quick with that because you first said that if the states requested. i'm assuming leading up to election day, there's going to be a considerable amount of information being shared and if you're seeing something, you're going to be encouraging those states to request that information or try to do that? i mean, some states, you know, look, a lot of states are reluctant to get the feds involved. alabama probably one of them. you know, for a lot of reasons. but i assume there's going to be a lot of information sharing up to that so you can help identify, not just relying on the states, but you can help identify where there's a particular vulnerability? >> yes, sir, absolutely. we have every single day,
9:10 am
steady engagement with all 50 states and local jurisdictions. secretary merrill has been a partner and we look forward to continuing to work with him and we're not just waiting for election day. the amount of progress that we've made in the last year alone is quite substantial, and we will continue pushing, pushing, pushing through the membership and then we'll do a hot wash and figure out where we need to get better and make the run up to the 2020 presidential. >> great, thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator tillis. thank you all for being here and the good work you're doing. miss mandelker-- or actually, mr. ford, this may be in your-- and one they think provided to the committee in a classified setting-- or in an open setting, are trim lines. i'm very curious to see what is
9:11 am
the -- let's say activities with foreign direct investment into russia, you know, if you applied it back over some period of time. if you take a look at exxon. exxon was mentioned here. interestingly enough, i think that started in the 2013-14 time frame, probably months before crimea was invaded and yet for that entire period of time under the prior administration there wasn't enough action to make exxon take pause as to whether or not it made sense to do that. this administration has. so if we look at some of the economic fundamentals, movement in their jdp, the sorts of foreign direct engagement, those are going to be very helpful for us to have and kind of map that to actions that you all have taken. you may not be able to drive direct causation, but i think helpful to show and i think we're seeing trends moving in the right direction.
9:12 am
i don't know if you have any information, you can provide with that, or whether or not that could actually be provided publicly at some point. >> senator, we had be happy to provide that publicly. there's no question that we're seeing those kinds of trend lines, no question that our sanctions are-- the fact that we've actually gone after some of these very significant entities, oligarchs. >> i'd like to get that and drill it down so when you hear no action is being taken, no repercussions are experienced, that seems to suggest or to defy any logic with anybody that follows the russian economy. mr. ford, do you have anything to add to that? >> not to add, senator, except i would agree completely it's very clear that russia has been feeling pain from this. and after we sanctioned them for the-- >> let's get that information because i'd really like to point to it and we can talk
9:13 am
more in the session tomorrow. mr. krebs, do you believe that russia started meddling in elections just in 2016 in the united states? >> without speaking to any classified specifics. i find it hard to believe that intelligence service hasn't been trying to collect information on policymakers. >> do you believe it's fair to say without sharing anything of a classified maker, that prior administrations would have been aware of this? >> well, certainly the last administration was aware and-- >> do you see any evidence internally there was any aggressive action being taken as a matter of policy or congress to act to provide additional tools in that time frame? >> as the undersecretary mentioned, i also was not there. i think there was perhaps a lack of precipitation to-- >> it's easy to lay your hands
9:14 am
on that and may be in the closed session tomorrow. that's not a formal request. if it's easy and can gets your hands on it, i want you to be prepared to talk about that tomorrow. >> the other point in relation to some questions here about burning down the russian economy, i think that that sounds good. it may be a good sound bite. i think it isn't good as a matter of strategic, precise policy you're trying to wrap things up without the unintended qualities. i think that secretary m mandelker, that's what you were trying to get to. tomorrow, if we could talk about some of matters that might not be appropriate for this setting, i would appreciate getting into that. mr. krebs, in my remaining time, you mentioned there are 22 states currently engaged, getting into the last mile program. do you know whether or not, can you say whether or not north
9:15 am
carolina is one of them? >> sir, i'd have to circle back on that. we tend to not talk about specific state engagement. >> i think the other thing that's very important, i think i heard you right by saying they've got to come and request your support. >> yes, sir. >> so, it would be probably also be helpful for those of us in the senate who want to make sure that the state is aveiling themselves of these resources, that we as members of the senate communicate to the secretary or the election officials, this is a resource they should take advantage of. i'd like to get your advice how we should communicate that. >> mr. chair. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. krebs, i don't know if you're familiar with the story just out, a letter or a primary source from a young 17-year-old? >> yes, ma'am, i did see that this morning. that's very interesting reading, actually, attending a conference where a programming conference where they were asked to try and hack into state data bases and change
9:16 am
numbers. but he decided he'd do something different and he ended up in five minutes, without really knowing a lot about it, cracking the system. you know, anyone who reads this has no confidence at all that we're headed in the right direction and that we're taking the right kinds of prophylactic measures and one thing that we absolutely have to do, we have to have paper ballots. so, how many states have a system where they don't require paper ballots right now? >> five states are entirely electronic, 14 states total have some degree of nonpaper ballots. this is very problematic. >> yes, ma'am. >> and i can't say enough about the need to be very vocal in those states where they don't have paper ballots. as far as i've seen every single state that does not have paper ballots is on track, weather at the-- >> will they be on track for the 18 election? >> i don't believe so, but i think every single one of them is aiming for 2020.
9:17 am
>> this is a real problem. i wasn't there in the exercise, i don't know, maybe in closed session we can talk a little about whether this experience that this young 17-year-old had is consistent with your concerns, but, you know, able, very, very concerning and a wakeup call for all of us. >> if i can comment on that article. i try to look at the glass half full side of this. i think with the def-con and black hat conference, what we're seeing is awakening and awareness of the importance of security and cybersecurity and election security. no one is sitting back and taking this on the chin. we're stepping forward, we're making progress. i'd also say when you have, i think that individual had as been in computer science for five or six years. that is also one of the greatest gaps that we have as a nation is cybersecurity work
9:18 am
force and stem education. and when i read that article-- >> he professed he didn't have a level of skill sets that would in any way match a russian data base or bank of hackers. >> but he's in the game and tell you what, that 17-year-old and the 11-year-old they were talking about, i want their resume's in five years, we need more of that. >> i'm telling you, it's a wakeup call. miss mandelker, you know, i'm going to say that i watch and look at the metrics that senator tillestiis was talking about and gdp and let's get it a microlevel. i've been watching your work
9:19 am
regarding -- it seems schizophrenic on their side and your side, they're granted a waiver and when they're granted a waiver and then it's withdrawn. and how do we have expansion and get rid of the oligarch and then it seems schizophrenic. >> i can't talk to the department of commerce. with rusal. those companies with owned by him and the same oligarchs. >> you let him take his money out of the company before they say we'd lift the sanctions. >> we haven't lifted any sanctions on rusal. on the same day, we appreciated as we've been discussing, that those kinds of designations can have wide range-- >> isn't that the purpose of
9:20 am
these to actually have wid wide-ranging effects this will lead to consequences. >> senator, with all due respect, the impact that some of those sanctions can have-- >> that's true in any global economy. we're going to have -- no one cares that soy bean farm he is are collateral damage. so why do we care if other people use aluminum are collateral damage on sanctions? >> senator, rusal is one of the biggest companies in the world and have operations all over europe. we've been in closed discussions with our close partners and eye lies -- allies. we want to make sure the impact of the designation itself-- i'm out of time. my only point there,' approach of avoidance. and when you have your boot on
9:21 am
the neck of a bad actor, you should keep it there. >> thank you all for your testimony today and mr. krebs, you've been clear that the department of homeland focuses on defense, hardening the infrastructure when it comes to election our election infrastructure, but i think we would all agree, even as we need to harden our defense, the best defense would be if we could deter the actions ahead of time, regardless what they may be. mr. krebs, i've talked about some of the positive signs you've seen with respect to the sanctions and you talk primarily about other countries not engaging with the russians when it comes to-- you describe the dog that didn't bark, right? >> i believe that was-- >> i'm sorry, mr. ford did that. >> but when it comes to our elections, the dogs are barking loudly, right? we have the director of
9:22 am
national director of intelligence dan coats, saying the lights are flashing red. and we have a few weeks ago, russian plan to interfere and are already interfering with elections. the microsoft story today and the facebook story from a couple of weeks ago. you as an experienced diplomate, who is putin listening to, is he listening to dan coats or what the president is saying in helsinki and the rally after the national security advisors, and saying this is a russian hoax. >> i'll venture to take that one. >> mr. ford, i'm sorry, for you. >> i'm not in a position to discuss m any detail to whom president putin is talking to, i hope someone on the council, but not myself.
9:23 am
my impression is that the russians are very well aware in the soviet aria used to call it coalition of courses. and they know what it is to feel economic pain and sanctions and factors played together in a country's national powerment what we're trying to do, putting aside whatever it is, you know, i understand your question, but i think from a russian perspective by guess would be they're attuned to the net impact of our ability to project power-- >> mr. ford, i'm asking you about the election. we have evidence including this morning that clearly haven't gotten the message with respect to interfering in our politics, in our elections. you said earlier that the obvious objective is to influence russian behavior, the obvious objective of sanctions and we also need to make it clear there will be a painful result if the russians engaged in maligned behavior. here is what mr. pompeo said to
9:24 am
senator rubio, senator rubio and i have introduced the deter act which would establish very clear person personalities on russian behavior if we catch them again interfering in our election. secretary pompeo said, senator, i completely agree with you, there's a cost benefit calculation taken for the russian act. and putting them on notice about a fail safe about things that will follow has the likelihood of being successful and raising the costs in terms of how we calculate risks associated with a wide range of actions. do you agree with the secretary's statement? >> well, i clearly agree with secretary pompeo. he think it's important, and as i was explaining a bit earlier, i think it's important to protect a couple of different equities. we need to influence russian behavior. we need to protect, you know, in the-- we need to protect the economic and competitive interests and job equities that we have. we need to protect our
9:25 am
relationships with other players around the world. we don't have to my knowledge, interagency piece of legislation at this time. i believe we have channels. i believe it presents challenges from the perspective of the degree to which we are in-- the degree to which it's possible to have a national security waiver. >> i'm sorry, my time is running out and we can work on issues regarding to. >> we'd be happy to on these-- >> i worry a little built when you say to study, the reality is under the deter act, there's no getting around the penalty. you have clear, harsh penalties. these are contingencies, and we've talked about whether we should increase sanctions on russia today. what we're talking about in this piece of legislation is if they get caught interfering in our elections in 2018 after this bill were to pass, then there would be harsh sanctions. do you agree with the secretary that that seems like a good frame work to approach this
9:26 am
issue? >> we've already made very clear that there are behaviors and that is one of them, that would be unacceptable and we certainly plan and would expect to make russia regret any step of that sort. we'd be happy to work with you and your staff to provide input to make sure that this legislation, it's as well-crafted as it could be including from the-- that this is a tool that we can use in behavioral inducement to make sure that russia can behavior better and-- >> thank you, that was a lot of adjectives. but the point today we know they are not getting the message. i mean, we know that, right? the director of national intelligence and everybody has told us that they clearly are not getting the message today despite what you and everybody else has been saying. so, we've got about 80 days left in that to go and, my
9:27 am
goodness, if we can't come up with a way to safeguard the integrity of our democracy in the next 80 days, shame on us. >> senator cortez masto. >> let me try from a different tactic and ask the three of you if you can help me understand the administration's strategy towards russia's election interference. what theory of behavioral change is the administration pursuing that entails treasury designating a series of russians individuals and entities on one hand and have president trump standing next to putin and saying that russia is not targeting elections on the other. what's the thinking that leads to these actions? can any of you answer that? >> senator, i think the president later corrected what he had said during that press conference, but the bottom line is that we have been-- >> and are you getting clear
9:28 am
directions from the president in addressing the concern that i'm hearing from all of my colleagues in a bipartisan manner, to address what russia is doing in interfering with our election process? >> absolutely, senator. >> so what addition l sanctions can treasury impose? >> again, this morning we imposed additional sanctions. it's a very active program for us as i've mentioned. we have designated some of the biggest companies in russia, some of putin's closest allies who have an enormous amount of wealth which was seriously impacted by our sanctions. the impact of our sanctions has had a worldwide impact for russia as it's had a chilling effect on individuals and companies and countries who are considering doing business with russia. do they understand that-- >> my time, let me ask-- i appreciate that and we've had this conversation in the confidential briefing as well which i was not impressed with. there is evidence through the
9:29 am
panama papers or russia, suggesting several childhood friends of president putin have windfalls, and these men are a few of the russian entities and individuals experts suggested should be designated under the authority. do they have the authority under that to pursue them? >> i can't speak to particular individuals without knowing their names and circumstances, and we have broad-- >> you're not aware of the individuals through the panama papers or the russia-- a you're not familiar with what i'm talking about. >> and we have reports under costa that details a number of oligarchs and officials close to putin. we have a great deal of information on those individuals and we have designated a number of them. >> so my colleagues referred to the deter act. do you support it? >> senator, i know the administration is happy to work
9:30 am
with the senate on the deter act or any other particular-- >> are there any other language in the deter act you have concerns about. >> we're happy to sit down and provide that kind of guidance. i think those discussions have already been well underway. >> mr. krebs, you identified, there were five states without paper ballots. are you currently working with those states to assure the elections. >> yes, ma'am, we work were all 50 states. you're currently working with those five. >> yes, ma'am. >> is there anything we can do in congress, shoring up what your he doing in working with them? >> absolutely. when you go back to your districts and jurisdictions, please encourage your local states to work with us. we hit them up every day. the more voices hear-- i don't want to undersell what t the we're doing. >> there were appropriations to
9:31 am
the state atop of 380 million prepared to the states that the states utilized. are you hearing from the states, additional dollars in addition to 380 million would have helped to shore up their election process. >> as i understand it, they're in the process of implementing that 380 million which was a much needed infusion. going forward there will be a requirement for additional funding. what we're trying to help states with is refine what the ask is and get to the bottom, what does this thing need and how are they going to use it? there have been investments at the state level 'cause ultimately, this is a state and local responsibility to administer federal elections. we're in a supporting role. the question going forward, is there money needed? how much, where is it going to come from and how are we going to-- if it's a federal spend how are we-- >> is there anything else? >> yes, ma'am, auditability.
9:32 am
>> thank you. >> i know my time is running out. >> thank you. senator warren. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sanctions often follow the money and russians are making harder for the united states to follow the money. the recent defense bill requires treasury to look at efforts by vladimir putin and his crony including location, value, size of their bank accounts and real estate holdings and shell companies that they use to hide assets. that bill has been signed under law. under-secretary mandelker, when will you provide the briefing? >> we'll be happy to working with your staff with the briefing. >> it's not my staff, you're supposed to give that to all of congress. >> i'll be happy to give you that brief. >> weeks, months? >> again, senator, i believe that that requirement was that
9:33 am
we construct in consultation with the director of national intelligence. >> have you started that? >> we have a number of efforts underway. in fact, we detailed-- >> is that a yes or no? >> again, senator we have a number of efforts underway to follow the money. we just provided an extensive report to congress pursuant to-- >> you have a requirement, number one, i'm asking about one thing, about a report you're supposed to produce and i want to know when you're going to produce the report. i ask this question because frankly i'm not convinced at that treasury is doing everything possible to hold people account for using cyber attacks to interfere in our elections and those of our allies for illegally occupying ukraine, for propping up the syrian dictator assad. congress to be provided a report on network of senior russians close to putin. i saw what you did. you copied and posted the forbes billionaire's list, thank you, but we already have
9:34 am
that. the senate intelligence committee asked treasury to help follow the trail of dirty russian money to investigate russian interference in our election and you're reportedly dragging your feet on that. it's been over a year since congress overwhelmingly passed sanctions on russia. you still have not implemented seven mandatory provisions of that law. it is not hard to see why putin thinks he can still interfere in our elections and get away with. the american people and the world deserve to know how putin makes his money and if we want to squeeze putin and his cronies, we need to follow the money and expose those assets, so that these corrupt individuals can fewer ways to ignore the sanctions. so, i want to ask you about another question, following up on what senator heitkamp asked. last month, just days after president trump met with president putin in finland, rousseau sthe company
9:35 am
sanctioned by a putin crony, received an exemption from president trump's tariffs in the commerce department. treasury reportedly signed off on this exemption. i sent a letter to the commerce at the point in time asking questions about the decision and one day later the administration reversed its tariff exemption. i was very glad to see that, but can you tell me-- i still have a simple question, how did treasury allow a tariff exemption for the subsidiary of a sanctioned russian company in the first place given that the tariff was meant to protect american suppliers. >> that was a decision by the-- >> so the information you signed off and reverse decisions it's not accurate. >> that's right, senator. >> you're saying it's in the accurate that dependent happen. -- didn't happen. so let me ask the rest of it. meanwhile, treasury is reportedly considering lifting sanctions on rousseau which is
9:36 am
sanctioned to for ties to a russian oligarch, and russia in ukraine. treasury secretary mnuchin says he's concerned about the people of rusal. and have they stopped efforts to spread corruption? >> i want to correct one point from your earlier question. which was-- the oligarchs report and the classified oligarch report have said repeatedly was a very extensive piece of work, involved over 2500 hours of work within the interagency. so in terms of following the money we've undertaken-- >> look, i'm now out of time, but let me just say on this, we just passed a law about this. i just asked you about when you-- asking you for a report and it was signed into law and all i ask you is when are you going
9:37 am
to follow that and you tell me we already have. if we thought you'd already done it we wouldn't have passed another law asking for this report. it's perfectly fair to ask you when you're going to comply with the law that president trump recently signed into effect. >> that law requires we provide a briefing and we provided the report. >> when. >> covering a list of finance of money-- >> and when are you waiting for that briefing? >> excuse me? >> when? that was my question, the whole question, a short question. >> we're happy to get back to you. that's a briefing that we would do with the director of national intelligence and state department. i'm not prepared to give you a date today. >> or even a ballpark. thank you. >> senator reed. >> mr. chairman, let me ask if anyone would disagree with the statement that we have irrefutable uncouldn't--
9:38 am
uncontradicted evidence that president putin -- that they continue to interfere in the election process in the united states, does anyone disagree with us? >> i think that tracks with the intelligence community. >> and going back to the questions raised. why does the president seem unwilling to accept the fact, as recently as yesterday he suggested that it may or may not have been the russians in an interview with reuters. why doesn't he accept what is the fact? >> i believe he supported the intelligence community. he supported the intelligence community. as undersecretary mandelker
9:39 am
said, he's protecting the election is a priority. >> why yesterday he was asked about the mueller investigation, criticizes it, plays right in the hands of the russians, if it was the russians? >> sir, i'm not aware of that report. >> do you follow-- >> it's in the newspaper today. >> so that the president has been clear, he supports the intelligence community. i have all the guidance and direction and authorities that i need to help state and local election officials. >> would it help your efforts if the president of the united states, your efforts both nationally and internationally, if the president of the united states made a statement to the american people that essential had i reaffirmed the statement i just made? ie, we were attacked by the russians, the russians, putin, it was designed to affect the election in 2016. they are continuing to attack us.
9:40 am
would that help your efforts in terms of bolstering election security if the president actually said that directly, rather than every other day equivocate? >> again, sir, the president supports the intel guns community assessment. he said that publicly and-- >> well then why did he turn around and say, i support the intelligence community assessment, but as recently as yesterday saying, well, it may be the russians, maybe not? how does that support the intelligence community assessment? when the intelligence community assessment, as you all conceded is absolutely conclusive as to the involvement in russia, the direction of putin and their continuing ongoing threat to the united states. this is as if a previous president could have said, well, we were attacked, but it could have been those guys or maybe somebody else? i don't think that's the way our previous presidents have
9:41 am
acted. i don't think you have an answer. >> sir, again, i have the guidance i need to go and engage. >> what about engaging the american people in the international community? they're looking at, as my colleague suggests, well, the president doesn't believe that. we have one of the issues that's coming out shortly is that the european union every six months has to renew sanctions and expires january of 2019. is there a chance that one, and one of the countries could say, you know, this would be no big deal what the president means, we don't have to do that. >> senator, we engage with our european colleagues. they just issued additional sanctions following sanctions that we previously designated. we're going to continue to work
9:42 am
with our colleagues to have them continue to ratchet up the pressure that we've placed on the russian economy. and those suggestions have been quite productive. >> so, have you heard any of your european colleagues suggest to you that they're confused about the president's statements? >> no, senator. no, so they're completely -- as completely assured of his situation as we are, and frankly, you know, you can't explain the comment yesterday. neither can i. why would one question whether the russians are involved in the election as recently as yesterday if, in fact, you do support the intelligence community? thank you. . >>. >> thank you, senator reed, that concludes the questioning. questions submitted by senators will be due by next tuesday and i ask all of our witnesses to respond promptly to those questions. and with that this hearing is
9:43 am
concluded. thank you for your attendance and willingness to share your expertise with us here today. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
9:44 am
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> here is some of what we're covering thursday on the c-span networks. on c-span at 10 eastern the stimson center talked about taiwan's foreign policy and relation with neighbors. and a memorial service for john
9:45 am
mccain at northeast baptist church. a campaign rally for a senate candidate mike braun. on c-span2 at noon eastern, live coverage from the heritage foundation of a discussion about russian interference in russian elections. >> tonight book tv in prime time features books about the presidents. and dan abrams on abraham lincoln's last legal defense, a defense in 1859. pulitzer prize winning historian doris kearns goodwin discusses presidents lincoln, theodore roosevelt, fdr on lincoln johnson. former presidential speech righter on the relationship between the u.s. president and baseball. historian patricia o'toole chronicleses the career of wood wilson.
9:46 am
and william hitchcock recalls of presidency of divine-- dwight eisenhower. >> join us for the 18th library of congress national book festival saturday starting at 10 a.m. eastern. including viewer call-in from our set the at washington convention center. jon meacham, doris kearns goodwin with "leadership in turbulent times", ron churnow, and battle of new orleans, the battle that shaped america's destiny. watch the library of congress national book festival live on c-span2's book tv. saturday at 10 a.m. eastn.

83 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on